Talk:A Matter of Perspective (episode)
Votes from nomination for * Self nomination. This was one of my favourite all time TNG episodes. I feel that I've been exhaustive with writing this article without rambling on. I've written up most of the unwritten references as well to supplement the article.--Scimitar 12:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Everything seems to be in order. Tobyk777 22:45, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' It's a very well written summary. Tough Little Ship 23:00, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Weak Support' For starters, the main table wasn't formatted, and some spelling errors and needless pic sizing. But I cleaned alot of it up, and I think it's better. Something about it is still bothering me though... - AJHalliwell 21:45, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Well, I'm not sold on this being a unanimous vote. I suggest that if any proposed changes or ideas are had to improve the article that they be made, rather than to let this comment to go on marinating for another 5 days. --Alan del Beccio 19:45, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) **Spelling errors? Well I'm not apologi's'''ing for being a "limey", AJH. I think you're the one who's made spelling mistakes (e.g. alot). May I ask why you aren't fully satisfied with it, especially bearing in mind that you made a nomination for yet at the time of your nomination, it was so deeply flawed? I'd say that "A Matter of Perspective" is as well written or would your articles be good enough and mine not be?--Scimitar 12:41, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC) ***(In order...) I'm not asking you to, nor am I saying there's a problem with the British spelling of things. Spelling '''was not' the reason I "weak support"ed it, as I said above. I've made many spelling mistakes yes, but at current MA's policy is that of American English when possible. And I'm not sure what I don't like about it, which is why I didn't vote Oppose, as that would be unfair. My earlier mishaps on "Good Shepherd" are unrelated to this vote. I never said anything about you or your writing style in comparison to mine. And in case you didn't notice, I did vote to Support this article's featured status, even if it wasn't an enthusiastic support, it was a support none-the-less. If you have any personal disputes with me, please post them on my talk page, and not on the Featured Articles forums please. - AJHalliwell 01:09, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) :featured --Alan del Beccio 01:38, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC) The first paragraph of "Act Five" in this summary actually happened in Act Four - Jay Barasch, February 3, 2006, after watching this episode in syndication Nitpicks/plot holes I removed the following nitpicks (or plot holes, same thing). --From Andoria with Love 04:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :When the holodeck recreation was destroyed in the simulation, the table and chair that the crew was seated should have been destroyed along with other holographic matter. Also, when the simulation was not in use, the holodeck would have been turned off, which begs the question as to how the Krieger waves managed to damage parts of the ship without people in the holodeck noticing the visible beam from the generator. :Had Riker actually fired a phaser at the reactor onboard the space station, he might have materialized on the ''Enterprise in the same pose as when he fired (even though a handful of exceptional occurrences prove you can indeed move in the transporter, even though normally a person's pose is unchanged in the matter stream). Furthermore, the transporters should have detected that his phaser was in discharge. Given that no discharge was read from his phaser, it should have appeared unlikely he fired it.'' Actually, having removed the above, are nitpicks and plot holes considered the same thing? I think they are basically one and the same (as in someone is nitpicking about a plot hole), but wanted to get clarification about it here. --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :It is a nit, not a plot hole. The first one assumes that the holodeck is turned off when not in use during the "trial". This is never actually shown, and is an assumption. It is just as likely in fact, given the effect on the ship, that the holodeck was left on. It also assumes knowledge on how Kreiger waves work that we do not have. When is it said that the beam is the main and only effect of the Kreiger wave? Never. Again, the episode would seem to indicate that, like microwaves, there is also an invisible effect, that which effected the Enterprise. :The second note on the phasers can also be mostly explained away. The sensors DID detect a power drain in the transporter beam. In fact, the chief investigator suggested that the power drain could be explained by the phaser discharge. The crew of the Enterprise initially offered no other explanation, and accepted that as a possible one. Therefore, that is explained. The ONLY thing not explained is the pose when transported, but I bet if I thought hard enough I could think of an explanation for that too. :Point being, these are nits, not plot holes, and they are badly written nits at that. Good day. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC) The only thing that bothers me is why would he take a phaser with him to a science station? --Ortzinator 05:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :Just in case it was attacked by Romulanz or Borgz... ITs pretty well established that TNG era officers carry the small pocket phasers on the bridge with them (Torres in "Encounter at Farpoint"), and on some away missions. Geordi even kept both a small phaser and a large phaser kicking around his quarters, in "The Mind's Eye" and "Aquiel", respectively. The palm-size phasers were carried by some officers on "supposedly-friendly" away missions like Cestus III. Remember Kirk and party were going to dinner in a Commodore's installation, and they still brought their phaser-ones. Apparently, Picard's assertion in "Conspiracy" that "one does not beam down to Starfllet Headquarters armed" establishes that SFHQ is one of the few places Starfleet doesnt carry phasers on them, no evidence exists that the (alien) Tanuga station would be a "no-phaser" zone. -- Captain M.K.B. 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ::Alright, it would make sense that the only time they wouldn't take a phaser would be in diplomatic missions where they don't want to appear threatening. ::I thought the station was a Starfleet station? The panel in the quarters given to Riker appears to be Starfleet judging by the pill-shaped buttons typically seen on Starfleet ships. --Ortzinator 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :It wasn't a Federation station. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ::One of the plot points of the episode is that the Federation was giving the scientist technology -- presumably, the station and the technology onboard -- in exchange for his work trying to create the Krieger waves. It was heavily referenced that Apgar felt a failure in that the Federation was supplying him, but he wasnt able to provide results, despite needing more supplies. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) :*''During the scene where Data, La Forge and Wesley Crusher are explaining the source of the radiation to Captain Picard, Data says "reoccurs" while describing the periodic nature of the radiation burst. The correct word is "recurs." The script also contains this mistake.'' :::Removed nitpick. — Morder 16:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Goof - Backwards Enterprise *It's probably worth mentioning that at the end of the episode, just before the final piece of dialogue, the shot where the Enterprise is orbiting the planet, the ship is backwards. It is easy to see that the NCC-1701-D is reversed. 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC) ::* Another goof occurs whenever Appgar is seated at his workstation during the recreations and the scene is 'frozen'. The actors remain motionless while the digital numbers on the workstation continue to flicker randomly.– Vivec 07:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Question: High Tower is in one of the notes, followed by speculation about the wife's familiarity with the Human story of Rapunzel, and what that might mean for Riker's truthfulness about who made moves on who. Firstly, did he actually say this? Watching it today I heard "princess in an ivory tower" which would make it a reference to her status as a Scientist's wife rather than a reference to an Earth fairy tale. Even if it was "high tower", is Rapunzel the *only* possible story involving a princess trapped in a tower? Surely that's a fantasy story cliche, isn't it? 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC) :Riker said "a princess in a very high tower" according to this script. -- Connor Cabal 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) View of the Bridge Is there an earlier episode in which the Bridge is scene facing the view screen behind the control console? If not, it certainly fits the name of the episode to show a whole different view of the bridge Removed Removed the following; the first and fourth are uncited similarities, the rest are nitpicks. * This episode shares the same underlying theme as the plot of the film . * In Manua Apgar's recollection of the events, Riker calls her a "princess in a very high tower", referring to the fairy tale of . He doesn't use this reference in his recollection, however. Either the alien Manua knows about the Human fairy tale (or some similar analog exists in Manua's culture) or Riker was not completely honest in his recollection of the events. * The small Starfleet signage labels seen on the science station are different from the labels normally seen. The labels normally feature white writing on an orange background. Here, the colors are reversed and the labels have orange text on white background. * Like this episode, the Star Trek: Voyager episode also features a Starfleet officer (Tom Paris) being brought to trial for the murder of a scientist against whose widow he was accused of making advances. Both episodes feature the use of recalled memories to create realistic images of events that are then used as evidence in criminal proceedings. Both also feature a rush to judgment where the defendant is wrongly accused; in this episode, Riker's extradition is sought, while in "Ex Post Facto", Paris is tried, convicted, and sentenced by the authorities of the alien culture before Voyager could intervene. * During Krag's holographic simulation of events, in which Riker fires a hand phaser at the Krieger wave converter, Jonathan Frakes uses "sleight of hand" when he appears to quick-draw the hand phaser from a side pocket. Frakes has the phaser palmed during the entire sequence. When he slaps his combadge to request beam-out, it is evident that he's holding something by the fact that his hand isn't flat. Then he drops his hand and appears to "whip out" the phaser in one fluid move. --31dot 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Removed the following uncited similarity- needs proof a deliberate connection was intended. Though a similar comment is above, I have copied it here due to its being more extensive. The Rashomon Connection The plot is very similar to the legendary film "Rashomon" the 1950 Japanese crime mystery film directed by Akira Kurosawa. The film depicts the rape of a woman and the apparent murder of her samurai husband, through the widely differing accounts of four witnesses, including the bandit/rapist, the wife, the dead man speaking through a medium (Fumiko Honma), and lastly the narrator, the one witness that seems the most objective and least biased. The stories are mutually contradictory, leaving the viewer to determine which, if any, is the truth. The Outrage (1964) was a remake of the 1950 Japanese film Rashomon, reformulated as a Western and starred, among others, William Shatner. --31dot 20:32, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :I returned a (brief) mention of Rashomon, since this similarity is mentioned in several places, including The Unauthorized History of Trek and Cinefantastique, Volume 21 (according to Google books).– Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC) Removal of Featured Article Status 9/14/2009 I know this is a little after the fact, but this article, no matter how well written, is entirely too long. This is supposed to be an episode "summary" - not a transcript of the screenplay. We had a similar issue with and it was removed from featured article status. Reading this article is tedious and one might as well just watch the episode which is more fun. This article should be removed from featured article status until properly edited for length. – Distantlycharmed 17:00, September 14, 2009 (UTC) :Remove from FA status unless the summary is shortened.--31dot 11:32, September 15, 2009 (UTC) :Remove from FA status for consistency only. I really don't think a long summary is grounds for this, but if another article was removed for the same reason, I seen no reason to change the precedent at this time. - Archduk3talk 12:06, September 15, 2009 (UTC) :Remove unless summary is shortened ( I dont know if i needed to reiterate that by formally putting the remove in here again). – Distantlycharmed 04:02, September 16, 2009 (UTC) ::Removed from FA status as of this date.--31dot 22:32, October 15, 2009 (UTC) Question about the plot / end Just recently saw this episode again and overall enjoyed it. However, the ending does not seem to be complete; we do not get an answer as to what (if anything) really occured between Manua and Riker. Anyone else feel this way or did I miss something? I'd like to hear other's "perspectives" on this question :) :I would guess that the truth is probably somewhere in between.--31dot 01:27, September 21, 2010 (UTC) ::I think Riker thinks he's more formal and less charming than he really is, so of course Manua's portrayal of his attitude (when he meets her; her later portrayal of Riker did not seem like him) would seem like the Riker we all know. But that does not mean he did any of those things that he did in Manua's perspective. And about the line "a princess in a very high tower" and the Rapunzel tale, I personally think that since humans know a great deal of legends and mythologies of other species, that people like Manua and other species also would know about Grimms' fairytales. [[User:InspiredAndNatural|'♚InspiredAndNatural♚Kristi ']] [[User talk:InspiredAndNatural|'(message me here)']] 17:48, December 9, 2014 (UTC) Bottle show? How exactly is this episode a 'bottle show'? There is a notably large space station set, a series of guest stars, several major FX elements including explosions, melting walls, and holodeck doubles of characters... I don't see this as a bottle show at all. TheHYPO 17:31, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :Ask the Companion. This isn't a case of our personal opinion, but rather is what the reliable source states to be. Some possibilities could be that the stuff you list might not actually be expensive. The space station model was a studio model that had already been developed in that form for a previous episode, . The station sets might be fairly simple redresses of existing TNG sets. Our background article already mentions that the observation lounge set was simply redressed for this episode. This is a fairly common practice in Star Trek, and probably why so many walls on the show are simple and single colored. Re-arrange or remove the furniture, change the lighting, and shoot from a different angle, and the set looks like a completely new room. I don't know enough about the guest cast. Could they have been fairly inexpensive guest stars, or on special contracts with Paramount? As for the FX, depending on how they did it, those might not have been expensive either. Remember that transporter effects were originally done with what amounted to water and glitter. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:47, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Not only does the Companion call it a bottle show, but in fact it refers to it as "one of the most claustrophobic bottle shows ever". Unfortunately I don't have any information about the budget for this episode. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:51, July 5, 2011 (UTC) Musical score Might something be added about the musical score of this episode? In my personal opinion (and I've just been watching every TNG episode in sequence -- for the first time in my life), the score of this episode is quite different from the previous ones. Particularly the opening piece with the art class is spectacular, however quite unlike any Star Trek music I've ever heard. 00:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC) :Do you have any specific suggestions for such an addition? If you don't yet wish to put them in the article yourself you are welcome to put them here and see what others think.--31dot 00:50, February 12, 2012 (UTC)